Evaluation of the performance of irrigation schemes helps to know the present status of the scheme and to apply possible measures for improvement. This study was initiated to evaluate the performance of the Enfranz irrigation scheme using internal and external performance indices such as conveyance efficiency, application efficiency, water delivery performance, maintenance indicators, and assessment of institutional and support services, so as to recommend appropriate measures to improve the scheme's management and performance. To undertake this study, primary data like discharge measurements in the canals, measurement of the depth of water applied to the farmers‘ field, field observations, interviewing beneficiary farmers, and determination of moisture contents of the soil before and after irrigation, and secondary data were collected from secondary sources. The results obtained showed that the conveyance efficiency of the main canal, secondary canal 1 and secondary canal 2 was 95.53%, 80.36 % and 82.55% respectively. The efficiency was in the acceptable range when compared to standards. The Application efficiency result on three farmers‘ farms located at the head, middle, and tail of the command were 46.22 %, 48.836.85 %, and 35.88 % respectively. These values were found below the recommended value (60%). The water delivery performance was only 34 percent, showing a very substantial reduction from the design of the canal capacity. The result of output per unit command area, output per unit irrigated area, output per unit water supply and output per unit water consumed were 24,897.43 US$, 12,991.54 US$, 1.02 and 0.97, respectively. Primary and secondary data were collected and the data was analyzed in a descriptive and analytical way. Water control and drop structures were heavily damaged or intentionally avoided. The sustainability of the scheme is also in doubt in that currently it is irrigating only 76 percent of the developed land. All these show that the scheme is performing below the intended level. The services rendered by WUA and other relevant institutions in terms of managing the scheme and supporting beneficiaries were very poor. In conclusion, the overall performance of the scheme is rated as very poor. Therefore, proper institutional setup, scheme monitoring, and upgrading needs to be in place and WUA should be empowered in order for it to discharge its responsibility farms. Key words: Performance indicators Application Efficiency, Conveyance Efficiency, Storage efficiency, Maintenance Indicator